The definitive article on filed purses being bogus.

[Thuglife Nelo]

So basically what you’re saying is that Hauser too doesn’t think Charlo is good looking which is why $20million for a fight with Canelo is ludicrous?

Also the article suggests that most PBC fighters get boat loads of “marketing compensation” in cash (which represents half or more of the filed commission purses) stuffed in styrofoam mugs with text citing Lean Services for property investment tax free!? That’s that Haymon Sports side of the money innit!

[Articulateboxin]

Not accepted by the UK trolls. Day in and day out they insist filed purses are a true reflection of what the fighter was paid, no matter how much evidence shows otherwise.

Well spending time convincing the mind of a troll is like pushing water up a hill No amount of evidence is going to stall them, they'll just come at you from a different angle.

I don't work for PBC and never have. Filed purses are bogus for everyone. Not just PBC. Top Rank, Golden Boy, Main Events, they all do it. It's been standard operating procedure for decades.

Fair enough, though you might want to consider why a guy like me is drawing that conclusion, or not, that's your prerogative

It minimizes sanctioning fees and athletic commission taxes. It's not about hiding money from the feds. It's about structuring the deals in whatever way will minimize liability. I'm not going to explain every aspect of it on a public forum. But there's no tax evasion going on in the eyes of the law. You're just being creative with who is being paid for what.

Well if this is the only reason, then I don't blame the promoters /boxers for doing so!

[kafkod]

Not accepted by the UK trolls. Day in and day out they insist filed purses are a true reflection of what the fighter was paid, no matter how much evidence shows otherwise.

That depends on whether the fighter is entitled to a percentage of the income generated by the fight, on top of his guaranteed purse, as in the example you are using here.

[N/A]

That depends on whether the fighter is entitled to a percentage of the income generated by the fight, on top of his guaranteed purse, as in the example you are using here.

No, it doesn't depend on that. Hopkins was guaranteed 8 million, plus a percentage of the PPV and he filed his purse at 4 million. Even though, separate from the percentage of the PPV, he was guaranteed 8 million.

[kafkod]

No, it doesn't depend on that. Hopkins was guaranteed 8 million, plus a percentage of the PPV and he filed his purse at 4 million. Even though, separate from the percentage of the PPV, he was guaranteed 8 million.

That was one incident, 12 years ago, and the report further states that legal action was taken by the sanctioning orgs because of the discrepancy.

[soul_survivor]

https://www.nysun.com/sports/ignorin...-nevada/11026/

Boxing is systemically corrupt. When something in the sweet science doesn't look right, most likely it isn't. Right now, something doesn't look right in Nevada.

On September 18, 2004, Oscar De La Hoya and Bernard Hopkins fought in Las Vegas for the undisputed middleweight championship, a bout promoted by Bob Arum's company, Top Rank. Hopkins and his attorney have testified under oath that Bernard's purse for the De La Hoya fight was $8 million plus $7 for each pay-per-view buy above 800,000. De La Hoya-Hopkins engendered one million pay-preview buys.

Here's the rub. Last September, Top Rank filed an official bout agreement between themselves and Hopkins with the Nevada State Athletic Commission. The Hopkins bout agreement was signed by a representative of Top Rank and Hopkins himself and stated that Hopkins would receive $4 million as full compensation for his services and performance in the fight. The De La Hoya contract submitted to the commission was similarly flawed. It stated that De La Hoya's purse was $8 million, which was less than half of Oscar's actual minimum guarantee.

It's possible that Top Rank filed phony contracts with the Nevada Commission to help Hopkins and De La Hoya avoid paying the full fees that would otherwise have been due to the world sanctioning organizations that sanctioned the bout. Sanctioning fees are based on a percentage of each fighter's purse.

This theory with regard to the false filing is lent credence by a September 8, 2004, letter from Todd duBoef (Arum's son-in-law and a Top Rank vice president) to the World Boxing Association and International Boxing Federation.

That letter states, "Top Rank has been directed by the representatives of the above referenced fighters that the purses filed with the Nevada State Athletic Commission for their September 18, 2004, bout will be the following: Oscar De La Hoya $8,000,000; Bernard Hopkins $4,000,000."

The IBF is now suing both Hopkins and De La Hoya in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming breach of contract and fraud with intent to underpay the sanctioning fees. The WBA and World Boxing Council may soon follow suit.

One can construct a strong legal and ethical argument for minimizing the fees that are paid to world sanctioning organizations in conjunction with championship bouts. It's not uncommon for skilled fighters to be denied championship opportunities, while less-talented but better-connected boxers fight for belts.

Also, the "alphabet-soup" organizations have been known to engage in the bogus rating of fighters. Under federal law, one penalty for this misconduct is a court order that precludes the culpable sanctioning body from collecting sanctioning fees for any fight.

However, filing false documents with a government agency is an improper remedy, one punishable in Nevada by a minimum of one year and a maximum of five years in prison.

To date, the response of the authorities in Nevada has been disheartening. Chief Deputy Attorney General Keith Kizer (who represents the NSAC) said last week, "Sometimes, particularly with foreign fighters, deals are structured so that a fighter is paid a certain amount for his participation in a fight and then he's paid a separate amount for the use of his name and likeness in promoting the bout or for publicity services in his native land." Kizer further suggested that perhaps Hopkins was paid $4,000,000 for the fight and $4,000,000 more for the use of his image in advertising.

But Bernard isn't that good looking; his likeness is not worth $4 million. And in some instances, phony filings go beyond the downsizing of sanctioning fees and instead pave the way for tax fraud.

For example, when a foreign citizen fights in the United States, 30% of his TOTAL purse is supposed to be withheld for the Internal Revenue Service. And let's not forget, on January 6, 2004, a dozen FBI agents raided the offices of Top Rank as part of an ongoing investigation that is believed to center on fixed fights, the submission of phony medical documents, and tax fraud with regard to purses paid to foreign nationals for fights that took place in Nevada.

For a long time, the Nevada State Athletic Commission was viewed as a role model for what a boxing regulatory commission should be. To be fair, it still has many good things going for it. Raymond "Skip" Avansino, who assumed the chairmanship earlier this year, has a reputation for being capable and honest. The staff is knowledgeable.

But if the NSAC looks the other way when phony bout agreements are submitted, where on the slippery slope does other misconduct lie? Will the Commission look the other way when a fighter gets less than his officially reported purse rather than more? Will it condone the submission of false medical documents that endanger fighters' lives?

In boxing, as with other government-regulated activity, the integrity of public records should be preserved. That isn't being done right now in Nevada.

I get it. You want to say "Wilder makes loads more money homie!!!"

Well yes, the purses may be fudged one way or another, who cares? It still doesn't mean Wilder comes close to 20 mill

[N/A]

I get it. You want to say "Wilder makes loads more money homie!!!"

No, I want to say EVERYONE does.

When Hearn claims to have offered Broner, the Charlos, etc "2-3x more than they've ever made!" and the fighters laugh at Hearn and say they're already making more than he's offering, this is why. Because filed purses are bogus.

You can try to make it about Wilder if you want, but this is about DAZN's entire plan failing because Hearn promised them he could get all of PBC's stars to sign and he failed spectacularly. He failed spectacularly because he sold DAZN on the idea that they could pay way more than the fighters were making and it was a lie. They couldn't pay way more.

[N/A]

That was one incident, 12 years ago

So what about Crawford filing his purse every fight for way less than his actual guarantee? Was that once incident 12 years ago? Because he does it every fight.

[brick wall]

for non-ppv fights filed purses are usually right because revenues for the event are almost predetermined.

[buge]

this is about DAZN's entire plan failing because Hearn promised them he could get all of PBC's stars to sign and he failed spectacularly. He failed spectacularly because he sold DAZN on the idea that they could pay way more than the fighters were making and it was a lie. They couldn't pay way more.

So Eddie Hearn was not aware that filed purses are not equal to actual purses?